MAHABIR PRASAD SANTOSH KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 02-04-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
B 
p 
G 
H 
~01 
MAHABIR PRASAD SANTOSH KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
April 2, 1970 
[J.C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) 
Sugar Dealers' Liccnsi11g Order, 1962-Power of District Magistrate 
to cancel licence-if q1111sl·jud,iclal. 
State Govtrn111ent de<1/i11g with. statutor~ apptG·ls-Necesslty to rive 
fla&0'1$, 
. 
The appellants, who were holders of n licence under tho U.P. Suaar 
Dealers' Lfcen1ln.11 Order, 1962, to deal in 1u1ar and were also llcenced 
to deal In fl.our, wore called upon by a letter dated June 5, 1967 to explalll 
certain lmaularltles detected on Inspection of their 1hop. The next day 
they were directed to hand over thelr 1tock1 of 1u1ar and fl.our to a Co-
operative Marketln.11 Society. Their representatlon1 a.111!n1t this direction 
to the District MaiJstrate were not attended to and they were therefore 
obliged to surrender their stock1. 
By a letter dated June 28, 1967, tho 
appellants were informed that the District Magistrate had cancelled their 
licences as dealers in sugar and flour but no reasons were given for this 
order. An appeal under clause 8 of the Order of 1962 to the State Gov· 
ernment was rejected but no reasons were communicated to the appellants 
for this rejection. 
A writ petition challenging the orde'rs of the District 
Magistrate and the State Government in appeal was dismissed by the 
High Court. On appeal to this Coµrt, 
HELD : The orders passed by the District Magistrate and the State 
Government cancelling the licences of the appellants must be quashed. 
The authorities had disclosed by their conduct a reckless disregard of 
the rights of the appellants. The order passed bv the District Magistrate 
cancelling the licences was quasi·judicial; it could be made only on a 
consideration of the charges and the explanation given by the appellants. 
That necessarily implied that the District Magistrate had to give some 
reasons why he held the charges proved, and the explanation unacceptable. 
The appellants had a right to carry on their business and they could be 
deprived of their right only by an order supported by good and adequate 
reasons. 
Under the rules appellant had a right of appeal to the State 
Government. Unless reasons were given in the District Magistrate's Order 
the aggrieved party had no opportunity to convince the State Government 
that the order was erroneous. 
If the aggrieved party was not supplied 
the reasons the right of appeal was an empty formality. [203 H-204 D] 
There was niching on the record to show that the representations made 
by the appellants to the State Government were even considered. The fact 
that cl. 7 of the Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order to which the High Court 
had referred does not "require the State Government to pa~ a reasoned 
order" is wholly irrelevant. 
The nature of the proceedin~ requires that 
the State Government must give adequate reasons which disclose that an 
attempt was made to reach a conclusion, which was according to law and 
just. [205 HJ 
Opportunity to a party interested in the jjispute to present bis case 
on questions of law as well as fact, ascertainment of facts from materials 
L 11'.Sup.C 1-14 
----------
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[l 971] 1 S.C.R. 
b:-forc the Tribunal after disclosing the mate'rials Jo" the pj\rty against whom 
it 
i·~ intended to use them: and adjudication by a reasoned judgment upon 
a finding of the facts found, are attributes of"even a quasi-judicial deter-
mination. 
It must appear not Jllerely that the authority entrusted with 
quasi-judicial authority has reached a conclusion on the problem before 
•him : it !llU~t appear that he has reached a conclusion which is accdrding 
to la\v and just, and for ensuring that he must record the ultimate mental 
process leading from the dispute to its 5olution. [204 HJ , 
Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Others (per 
Subba Rao, J.) [1966] 1 S.C.R. 466; Bhagat Raja v. 'Union of India and 
Ors. [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302; State of Mqdhya Pradesh and Anr. v: Seth 
Narsingh'tias !ankidai Mehta, C.A. Np. 621 of 1966 decided on April 29, 
1969: The SflJte of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha o-nd Ors., C.A. No .. -723 
of 1966 decided' on April 21,1969 and' Prag Das Umar Vaishya v. The 
Union of India and Ors., !='.A, No. 657 of 1965 decided on Aug. 11, 1967; 
referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : "Civil Appeal No. 457 of 
1970. 
-
( 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 24, 1968 of the A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.